Judgment : 1. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 587 of 1984 had been adjudicated as insolvent in I.P. No. 24 of 1964, on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindugal. The properties in question, namely, item Nos.1 and 2 were brought for sale and the sale was held on 4. 1979. In the said sale the appellant in C.M.S.A. No. 19 of 1984 had been declared as successful bidder and the same was confirmed in his favour. To set aside that sale, the insolvent filed M.P. No. 46 of 1980 the file of the Sub-Court, Dindugal. The same was dismissed by the Sub- Court, Dindugal in its order dated 3. 1982. Aggrieved against the same, the insolvent filed further appeal in C.M.A. No. 83 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Madurai North at Dindugul. The learned district Judge in his order dated 10. 1983 set aside the sale in so far as item No. 1 is concerned and confirmed the order,in respect of item No. 2. Aggrieved against the same bother the insolvent and the purchaser have filed the above revision and the appeal respectively. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the insolvent/petitioner in the revision has submitted that the auction held is contrary to the rules framed for the said purpose, that the value for which the said property was sold was very low and that the sale was not properly held. 3. By virtue of the provisions of Section 79 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920, and of all other powers thereto enabling and with the previous sanction of the Governor, the High Court of Judicature at Madras had made the Rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the said Act. The said Rules are called as The Madras Provincial Insolvency Rule 1922. The Rule regarding ‘sales’ is as follows:- F Sales - .(1) As a rule property should be sold by public auction; sales in any other manner should only be made with the sanction of the court .(2) Official Receivers should under no circumstances bid at sales of the properties of insolvents nor should they acquire, either directly or indirectly, any interest in the purchase of such properties. .(3) Save in the case of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay or of such a kind that the expense of keeping it in custody is likely to exceed its value, no sale shall be held by Official Receivers until after the expiration of at leastthirty days in the case of immovable property, and of at least fifteen days in the case of movable property, calculated from the date of the proclamation of sale. .(4) In auction sales a right to adjourn an auction should always be reserved .(5) in the conditions of sale if there are not sufficient bidders or if the highest bid is adequate. If there are not sufficient bidders, the High Court directs that, except when creditors with substantial interests are present and agree that the amount of the bid is adequate .(a) the first auction should always be adjourned to secure more bidders and .(b) a second auction should also be adjourned, if the amount of the bid is less than half the upset price. .(5) When a sale is adjourned for more than a month there ought to be a fresh proclamation. If not a fresh proclamation, at least there ought to be fresh notices to be creditors. There ought to be something to convince one that the amount realized in the sale did not suffer a diminution for want of publicity of the adjourned date” 4. As per the said Rule F (3) no sale shall be held by the of ficial receiver until after the expression of at least 30 days in the case of immovable property. On the basis of the said Rule, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/insolvent has submitted that there is no 30 clear days in the present case between the date of proclamation and sale and so it has to be set aside. On a perusal of Ex.B-3, it can be seen that the proclamation was made on 3. 1979. Admittedly, the sale was held on 4. 1979. In between these two dates, there is no 30 clear days. on the 30th day the sale was held. With respect to the item No. 2 of the property, on a perusal of Ex.B-5, it can be seen that the proclamation was made on 23. 1979 and the sale was held on 4. 1979. 1979. In between these two dates, there is no 30 clear days. on the 30th day the sale was held. With respect to the item No. 2 of the property, on a perusal of Ex.B-5, it can be seen that the proclamation was made on 23. 1979 and the sale was held on 4. 1979. Here also there is no clear 30 days interval between these two dates. so, in view of the noncompliance of the Rules, the sale cannot be sustained. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the insolvent/petitioner in the revision has submitted that the auction held is contrary to the rules framed for the said purpose, that the value for which the said property was sold was very low and that the sale was not properly held. 3. By virtue of the provisions of Section 79 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920, and of all other powers thereto enabling and with the previous sanction of the Governor, the High Court of Judicature at Madras had made the Rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the said Act. The said Rules are called as The Madras Provincial Insolvency Rule 1922. The Rule regarding ‘sales’ is as follows:- F Sales - .(1) As a rule property should be sold by public auction; sales in any other manner should only be made with the sanction of the court .(2) Official Receivers should under no circumstances bid at sales of the properties of insolvents nor should they acquire, either directly or indirectly, any interest in the purchase of such properties. .(3) Save in the case of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay or of such a kind that the expense of keeping it in custody is likely to exceed its value, no sale shall be held by Official Receivers until after the expiration of at leastthirty days in the case of immovable property, and of at least fifteen days in the case of movable property, calculated from the date of the proclamation of sale. .(4) In auction sales a right to adjourn an auction should always be reserved .(5) in the conditions of sale if there are not sufficient bidders or if the highest bid is adequate. .(4) In auction sales a right to adjourn an auction should always be reserved .(5) in the conditions of sale if there are not sufficient bidders or if the highest bid is adequate. If there are not sufficient bidders, the High Court directs that, except when creditors with substantial interests are present and agree that the amount of the bid is adequate, .(a) the first auction should always be adjourned to secure more bidders and .(b) a second auction should also be adjourned, if the amount of the bid is less than half the upset price. .(5) When a sale is adjourned for more than a month there ought to be a fresh proclamation. If not a fresh proclamation, at least there ought to be fresh notices to be creditors. There ought to be something to convince one that the amount realized in the sale did not suffer a diminution for want of publicity of the adjourned date” 4. As per the said Rule F (3) no sale shall be held by the of ficial receiver until after the expression of at least 30 days in the case of immovable property. On the basis of the said Rule, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/insolvent has submitted that there is no 30 clear days in the present case between the date of proclamation and sale and so it has to be set aside. On a perusal of Ex.B-3, it can be seen that the proclamation was made on 3. 1979. Admittedly, the sale was held on 4. 1979. In between these two dates, there is no 30 clear days. on the 30th day the sale was held. With respect to the item No. 2 of the property, on a perusal of Ex.B-5, it can be seen that the proclamation was made on 23. 1979 and the sale was held on 4. 1979. Here also there is no clear 30 days interval between these two dates. so, in view of the noncompliance of the Rules, the sale cannot be sustained. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/insolvent has submitted that even according to R.W.1, the Village Munsif, the value of the property is Rs.1,00,000. But R.W.2 the purchaser though denied the fact that the property was worth about Rs.1,00,000, he specifically stated that even if he was paid a sum of Rs.50,000, he would not leave the property. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/insolvent has submitted that even according to R.W.1, the Village Munsif, the value of the property is Rs.1,00,000. But R.W.2 the purchaser though denied the fact that the property was worth about Rs.1,00,000, he specifically stated that even if he was paid a sum of Rs.50,000, he would not leave the property. The first item of property was sold for Rs.25,300 and the second item was sold for Rs.9,325. The lower court on the basis of Ex.B-21 rejected the case of the insolvent, stating that in that document, the insolvent has mentioned only the sum of Rs.25,000 and Rs.7,000 as the values of the first and second items of the property respectively. The lower court failed to appreciate that the document was dated 12. 1964. The learned Sub-Judge should not have taken that value after 15 years to reject the case of the insolvent. Ex.B-17 will clearly show that only two bidders were present at the time of auction to purchase the property. It was due to the fact that the notice was sent to the creditors only three or four days before the date of sale and that can be seen from Ex.B-9 to Ex.B-12. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the purchaser/appellant has submitted that the property is 100 years old and it is in a lane, and so it can not be said that this price was low. Such submission cannot be sustained. Even as found by the lower court the first item of property is situate in a lane in West Cross Street, Dindugal which is an important business locality and the petitioner had made improvement and alterations in the first item of the property. 7. In Srinivasa Naicker v. Engammal, AIR 1962 SC 1141 while dealing with the powers of the Court, under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, has held as follows:-“ Even so, there must be judicial grounds on which the Court will act in setting aside the sale decided upon by the Official Receiver. 7. In Srinivasa Naicker v. Engammal, AIR 1962 SC 1141 while dealing with the powers of the Court, under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, has held as follows:-“ Even so, there must be judicial grounds on which the Court will act in setting aside the sale decided upon by the Official Receiver. These grounds may be, for example, that there was fraud or collusion between the receiver and the insolvent or the intending purchaser; the Court may also interfere if it is of opinion that there were irregularities in the conduct of the sale which might have affected the price fetched at the sale; again, even though there may be no collusion, fraud or irregularity, the price fetched may still be so low as to justify the Court to hold that the property should not be sold at the price” 8. In the present case the lower Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence found that the first item of the property was sold for low price. As discussed the sale was not conducted strictly in accordance with the rules. So the Sale in so far as item No. 1 is concerned cannot be sustained. 9. With respect to item No. 2, the lower appellate court is correct in holding that the lower court erroneously rejected the case of the insolvent as if he is not an aggrieved person. But, without going into the question elaborately, the lower appellate court simply rejected the case of the insolvent in so far as the second item of property is concerned. Even with respect to item No. 2, according to the insolvent, the value was Rs.50,000. But it was sold only for Rs. 9,325. No reason is given by the lower appellate court to reject the case of the insolvent. Moreover, as found earlier, the sale was held within 30 days from the date of proclamation. So, in any point of view, the sale with respect to item No. 2 also cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above discussion, C.R.P. No. 587 of 1984 is allowed. C.M.S.A. No. 19 of 1984 is dismissed. No costs.